why would anyone want to use FCPX (SERIOUS discussion - no bashing)

I do NOT want to attack or insult any FCPX editor here - I am just curious and I believe people do things for a reason. So why do you use FCPX? What are your reasons? What's great about it? I have started to use it now so of course I am lacking experience in it. So far it doesn't make any sense to me since I come from programs like Avid or Premiere. The main track is alright but I do not get why the track above (secondary story line or what's the exact term) can't be edited like the first track/main track. Having to group clips on the second clip/nesting them in order to gain editing features seems pretty weird as well.
There must be a reason why people use it and what's great about it but so far I could not find any reason and when I ask people they just tell me "because we've already used Final Cut 7". I do not think that you should use a software out of a habit. You should look for the tool that suits your needs the best.

Anyways I am just really curious and I would love to hear it from you because the Apple page isn't very convincing. It lists features like "you can add audio and EDIT your footage" - oh wow...
I've also failed to find a serious video on YouTube. Only little kids that don't make a living with video editing and nothing actually serious. I also find that they edited ONE movie with it with Will Smith- a movie I have never heard of.

[Michael Paul]"I also find that they edited ONE movie with it with Will Smith- a movie I have never heard of."

For case studies, you might want to check out FCP.co. As far as feature films, in the US two major films (to date) have been released that were cut with FCPX. These include "Focus" (which was a major release, even if you didn't hear of it) and "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot". Different studios, but same directors/editor team. Also several international releases and plenty of smaller indie features. The reasons for why these editors opted for FCPX varies, but in general, they were willing to be adventurous and found it to be a software they liked and got the job done.

That being said, it's an acquired taste and does require a bit of relearning to truly become comfortable with it. If you are happy with Premiere and Media Composer, why do you want to change? Do you have a compelling reason to switch? Have you gone through any of the many tutorials for FCPX? These will go a long way towards answering some of the operational "why" questions related to the app's design. Browse through this forum and you'll find 5 years of discussions as to the pros and cons of the app. Sometimes the reasons are that they like FCPX. Sometimes it's because it's an alternative to the subscription model.

[Michael Paul]"and when I ask people they just tell me "because we've already used Final Cut 7". "

That actually seems a bit ironic, since Premiere is much closer to FCP7 than is FCPX. In fact, quite a few former FCP7 users shifted to Premiere because it was a more comfortable transition.

[Michael Paul]"So why do you use FCPX? What are your reasons? What's great about it? "

I understand the feature/TV and advertisement aversion. Everyone already knows hi-end, full-function workflows for Avid & Premiere -- and even, previously, for Final Cut Pro 7 ... used for example by the Coen Brothers for many of their features, which they cut themselves (presumably sending cut pix to more technically fluent post-production supervisors for audio and effects work).

Just look at one of Avid's mini-docs on their editors doing "Gravity" or some such picture, to see the incredible depth of associated apps, custom controllers and other adaptations to pull off a "team-edited" feature. There is no need to know anything about FXPX if you do that stuff for a living.

However, for independent documentaries, web-docs and web-series, lots of other indie productions ... where the editor is most likely NOT making a living by cutting, but rather is cutting their own material ... FCPX is attractive because it is fun, easy, fast and ... if & when you get to know it ... very logical. AND with the available third-party apps, it can expand to play nice with other apps, with other pro editors.

I have just been assisting my 20-something son on a short he is making, a no-budget comedy, for his reel. He grew up using FCP 7, since my wife & I used it for documentary work. He has always been a very good cutter. BUT he is a writer/director type, not a gear head. He counts on collaborators for refinements of audio, effects, graphics and such. About the only area he insists on having absolute control is music editing, which he is also good at. He learned all of that in FCP 7.

He is now working in NYC, and has had to shift to Premiere Pro CC -- because that's what everyone in the indie and doc world is demanding that he know. The transition has been mostly logical, right down to the option of using FCP7 key commands as one of your PPro preferences!

He has worked for an indie narrative director, roughing out scenes in PPro. He is working for a serious documentary filmmaker in PPro. So now, he is cutting his short in PPro.

BUT ... even so, on this short, FCPX on our iMac at home has proven a useful tool.

He shot on a Canon 70D DSLR, with additional double-system 4-tracks on a Tascam DR-70 (a pair of wireless, a Sennheiser shotgun, etc). He initially tried syncing and wrangling all the tracks in PPro ... but when he asked me to help with his timeline crunch, as his "assistant" ... we found it was actually faster, easier to prep all the footage in FCPX.

The syncing ... especially when there was no slate ... was easier. The splitting apart of all 6 or 8 recorded tracks, to eliminate empty tracks of a stereo pair, etc ... the assigning of Roles (FCPX version of identifying "track" assignments) ... all of it was easier. Just from a graphic interface perspective, everything was easier to look at, analyze and manipulate quickly.

We then transcoded the clips to ProRes 422, multi-track in a Quicktime wrapper, ready to import and edit in PPro.

Even when editing within PPro, we found it easier to do a difficult audio fix -- finding the section on various tracks, deciding which sounded best, copying and replacing, fading, trimming etc -- with the six audio tracks and video clip on a FCPX timeline. Why? Who knows? I think it is just the "object editing" mentality of FCPX makes it more like a word processor or other creative tool, less like a mechanical process (e.g. the old-school, film editing-bench metaphor of classic NLEs).

I myself am particularly attracted to this object-editing interface. Even those six-track clips can be brought into FCPX and cut as a single object on the timeline. You can expand and work on any given audio track, disabling it, key-framing it, applying filters, trimming, fading ... then collapse it all, and just concentrate on cutting a sequence of clips. What you call "nesting" (compound clips?) in FCPX is just another way of saying: You don't HAVE to see all tracks, all clips, all titles etc etc... laid out all over a bunch of tracks ... during your content-editing phase, where you just want to see "this shot, that shot, the next shot" with wrangling and monitoring sync on acres of tracks & clips.

Hollywood and high-end documentary-wise, consider this: Walter Murch, editor, sound designer on features ... and also editor of the recent "Particle Fever" documentary ... worked for years with FCP7. He added on his own FileMaker Pro database. He showed me a track layout for Particle Fever, in FCP7, with dozens of tracks, video and audio. THEN, when it came time to review and manipulate basic are story points ... he would render a collapse Quicktime movie, and lay it on top of the whole edit. He called it a "skin" -- a single stream that represented his cut at that particular time, with all the actual tracks that make up his components, underneath that "skin."

It occurs to me, he is making FCP7 work like FCPX! The newer app now has terrific, integrated database functions. And it's basic graphic interface IS the skin. That is what you edit ... only expanding to see all the pieces when you needs to slip, slide and otherwise work on those parts.

FCPX is not full-featured enough for a high-end artist like Murch ... I'm just making a point, that there is a logic to working in the way FCPX works.

And for the indie filmmaker, writer, director, actor with NO ambition to make a living wrangling footage for someone else ... FCPX can be a good space to work in. That doesn't make it an "amateur" program ... anymore than storyboards are "amateur" visualizations of final cinematography and editing.

You should solicit the opinion of Bill Davis on this forum, for a more forceful defense of FCPX's capabilities and utility, for many media pros outside the small, couple-thousand-large pool of "Hollywood" and TV editors.

Easy to use
Magnetic timeline, no need to bother with patching or assigning tracks
You can choose what to output with the range tool and roles
EX: Output self contained movie with titles in English or Spanish
Great organizing
Ability to build custom effects, generators, transitions and title stuff in Motion
Better media management then old school FCP

In addition to some of the sites listed earlier you may want to check out Ripple Training, Steve Martin (not the actor) and Mark Spencer, a contributer on here in the Motion forum, have really great material. It is a one time purchase not a subscription based model. I also ordered Resolve training.

As others have pointed out there is a bit of a learning process but really is not that difficult.
My only beef is no native support for the Cinema DNG format. Hoping that will change in the next version.

I've used all the main editors over the years, but primarily FCP legacy since the early 2000s. I use whatever editor clients ask me to use, but FCPx for me is by far the best and fastest editor I have ever used once I grokked its style and let go of my older habits.

You would have to ask Walter Murch directly, or look through his various comments on why he doesn't use FCPX. When I spoke to him during Particle Fever, it was before the xml export and sharing with other apps, e.g. send tracks to ProTools etc, had been tuned up, and before several of the third party apps had emerged. At the time, it was those complaints and the usual suspects, lack of mixer, inability to key-frame certain effects, and the lack of numbered tracks representing a film-synchronizer type interface. I don't recall that file sharing was ever an issue with him, and in any case that has been worked out by now, as well. So why doesn't he use it now, after all the evolution we've seen? I can only generalize that it still isn't as "full-featured" as he'd like for interface with Hollywood-style post. Maybe I am wrong; maybe he just doesn't like the way it works. Many of us who grew up cutting actual film on a bench, on an upright Moviola and then on a Steenbeck or KEM ... thought FCPX was just plain "goofy" at first glance. I obviously no longer think that at all; I find it MORE logical than all the stuff I grew up with. It just required "letting go" of certain "metaphors" that most NLE's use to re-create the look of physical film cutting. So maybe Walter is a classicist and it is as simple as that. Sorry for my half-informed generalization!

I have been an outspoken critic of FCP X since its launch, and at the same time I have been using it continuously since day one - sounds contradictory, I know, but here's my take.

Any editor who isn't using FCP X at least in some way is seriously missing out.

There are things about Media Composer and Premiere that please me and things that displease me but overall I am fairly indifferent about them, whereas there are things about FCP X that I loathe with a deep abiding passion and things that I absolutely love. That's the big difference.

I won't go into the details of what I love and loathe here - do check out the links that others have given you and especially read what Oliver Peters has to say.

Don't be swayed by the fact that Walter Murch is not using it - he's missing out too. There are some really clever, talented experienced editors using FCP X (people like Oliver, Charlie Austin, Tom Carter, Ronny Courtens) and they have devised extremely impressive workflows that make the most of FCP X's many unique strengths.

The very things that you are now looking at and seeing as weaknesses are the things in which the real power of FCP X actually lies. Secondary storylines, for example, which seem to make no sense to you, offer truly unique possibilities - once you have used a secondary storyline for cutting music, for instance, you will want every other NLE to have the same capability.

Could Apple do better? Of course they could. FCP X is far from perfect (and some things will just never be good enough in my view) but the things it does well, it does so well that nothing else comes close for the sheer fun and speed of it. And the key word there is "fun" - you'll find a lot of FCP X editors describing it this way and for a very good reason. And if an NLE can be fun, that has to be a good thing!

So learn it - properly and in depth - and use it for the things it does well, even if that means that it only forms a part of your overall workflow, as Doug has described elsewhere in this thread. A lot of editors are doing just that - it's a great toolbox of useful features and you'd be crazy not to add it to your arsenal.

[Simon Ubsdell]"Since he doesn't even know the basics of how it works, talking about the details of how it works is probably not the best way of convincing him at this point ;-)"

Fair point I guess. But then I personally don't see what is in fact SO horribly different about X outside of its, IMHO, far superior organizational tools. Overall, whether you've actually used it or not, I think there is a lot to be said for it, that anyone that has ever edited with anything before could easily understand in principle. Even if they can't actually recreate whatever it is on their own off the bat.

[Michael Paul]"There must be a reason why people use it and what's great about it"

Again, I recommend the "In Action" pages. There is a lot and often very different things listed in each story that people uniquely love about X. I for one love its SPEED first and foremost. I've been editing for nearly 25 years and have never gotten from A (ingest) to B (export) so quickly and effortlessly. And yes, that is something you can really only understand and recreate with respective TRAINING and subsequent experience. X is NOT an NLE that you can just jump into when you are "handicapped" by previous NLE experience. Which, no, is not a BAD thing. Unless of course "different" is a bad thing for you in general. In which case… stick with what you have.

Do not underestimate me. I might know the basics- I might know even a bit more. You never know. Also I would love to know because I am curious. Also this is not about CONVINCIG ME. I have to use this software and get used to it and order to make money for a certain client who requiers me to use it so there so NO alternative. I HAVE TO use FCPX. I am not against learning something new and trying out new software so sure just let me know. This is just a friendly discussion here.
Also you might open my eyes where I am like OH WOW I never thought of it that way.

[Michael Paul]"Also you might open my eyes where I am like OH WOW I never thought of it that way.
"

Most, if not al,l of the people on this thread use or have used multiple NLE's. So we have been there. I am not sure what or why you are even asking? As I suggested earlier, the best way might be to go to Ripple or Lynda and take an essentials class to see how the software works as designed rather than trying to make it work like a traditional track based software.

[Scott Witthaus]"As I suggested earlier, the best way might be to go to Ripple or Lynda and take an essentials class to see how the software works as designed rather than trying to make it work like a traditional track based software."

+1

If you want a whole bunch of those moments, invest in Ripple Trainings basic course on FCP X. Their Media Management course is also outstanding and full of great ideas on managing media. That's what I did when I first got FCP X and it really opened my eyes to the possibilities.

FCP X does things differently and you really need to re-learn as much as you need to learn but in the end, I felt that it was a better way of working. Your mileage, of course, may vary. But how to best use FCP X won't be obvious because it won't be intuitive to your existing way of thinking. You need to be shown and then you have that "Ahh Haa!" moment and it all falls into place.

[Michael Paul]"So why do you use FCPX? What are your reasons? What's great about it?"

I use FCP X because the magnetic timeline is absolutely brilliant once you understand it. It's a completely new way to approach story telling. A primary storyline that drives forward with secondary storylines that support the primary story. THAT is how I want to think about the story that I am telling. Tracks do NOTHING to help me tell a story except get in the way. After editing with the magnetic timeline, I would never use an NLE that was track based again. It's just a strange way to approach an edit now.

The problem with other NLEs is that, in an effort to give editors something familiar (e.g., razor blades, bins, etc.), they have limited themselves to what the physical world can do. If early software developers designed the word processor the same way that Avid and Adobe (and others including FCP 7) approached the NLE, your computer would ring a bell when you reach the 72nd character of a line and you'd have to press return before character 80! You would also be reaching for the White-Out icon to fix your mistakes, and you would be manually adding another piece of digital paper when you got to the bottom of the page. Making a computer act like a typewriter would have been a very bad idea but that's essentially what developers did with video editing software.

Apple has re-imagined how telling a story with video should be and once you understand their new approach, you will see how much more productive you can be. If you try and fight it and use FCP X like track-based NLEs you will be very unhappy and frustrated with it.

With FCP X you need to unlearn as much as you need to learn. You need to open your mind to the fact that emulating physical bins may not be the best approach when you can use metadata tagging to group and find media effortlessly with smart collections. When I drag an interview section to someplace else on the timeline and the lower thirds and cut-aways that are connected clips move with it without me thinking or grouping or ungrouping or anything, and media in the new timeline location just moves out of the way to make room for the new video, I wonder why anyone would want to worry about tracks and making holes and making sure that you don't hide edits under other edits.

So I edit with FCP X because it's an extremely productive way to work, and telling stories with tracks that I need to manage seems archaic to me now. It's not for everyone... some writers still use typewriters. ;-)

John, you opening comments are basically what prompted me to invoke the Walter Murch anecdotes. For whatever reasons he doesn't want to use FCPX, I found it ironic that from his first use of FCP v1, consulting with Apple along the way, he has massaged the way it is used, worked up a powerful database to use alongside it ... to the point that, for the less technically-inclined folks like me ... it almost looks like he was forcing FCP Legacy to do the things that FCPX now does out of the box, for $300! THAT alone is reason to try it out.

It is. And exactly the same one I actually made years ago as well. I couldn't help think that HE of all people MUST find X absolutely brilliant because of the way he works himself. If not, he must never have actually gotten into the nitty-gritty of it or only spoken to people that knew just as little.

Organize as simply as you want or with a complexity and depth of multi-catagorizing sources as you see fit with Keywords, Smart Collections, Favorites, multiple in/out points per clip.

Rather than being limited to rigidly constructed relationships, connected clips, secondary story lines, auditions, allow situational flexibility at any point in time.

Roles allow you to organize the clip's intent without the constraints of visually linear arrangement.

While non everyone appreciates free jazz, I think it's important to have an NLE that offers the professional the creative freedom away from the constraints of traditional time signatures and harmonic structure.

[Craig Seeman]"While non everyone appreciates free jazz, I think it's important to have an NLE that offers the professional the creative freedom away from the constraints of traditional time signatures and harmonic structure."

As someone else has said on this thread, the Timeline Index is amazing. Say you need to fix in your project timeline an incorrect transition that you have applied hundreds of times in the project? Search for the transition in the index and then drag and drop ONCE onto all instances - job done.

I sense the original post was a superficial trawling...almost trolling style thread... there's plenty of great YouTube clips from Ripple Training etc.

You seriously ask a question like that in here without any real digging? lol

Summary: FCPX is built in the digital media mindset, not the telecine ones of the other NLEs.

FCPX is fast, its fun and I have now delivered hundreds of episodic TV shows using it.

The non-destructive database (library) structure of it is brilliant. Media management was the whole basis for the software in the first place and it delivers this in spades.

X is also far from perfect, it needs more freedom of layout in the Interface, needs a Roles Mixer too - and also tends to chew memory and slow down over prolonged use. Waveform generation is not there yet, particularly with growing (EVS) files. If FCPX really wants to wear the 'digital bandleader hat' - it needs to be able to deal with EVS!

Also needs to get serious about multi-user environments. They could smash the other NLEs with its digital hierarchy... if Apple progresses this properly in the next update.

I worry when I try and use some hardware (Blackmagic) that still encounter glitches within the FCPX environment.

They need to embed a 'sound only' transition. We still have Alex4D for the one we use, now.

October shapes up as FCP X's Zenith, one way or the other... with the rumoured updates.

I'm curious… what would your improved interface look like? What would be where? Because outside of maybe the scopes being in the same window as the viewer, I can't think of a single thing I would change that would be better than the way it is with the various shortcuts and fly in/out palettes etc. Maybe savable workspaces. But other than that…

[Dean Neal]"tends to chew memory and slow down over prolonged use"

Get that with PPro CC aaaaaaaall the time as well. Not an FCP specific issue by any measure, believe you me. Though X is far more performant than PPro on so many other levels anyway. Starting with just basics such as starting up the app itself. If I get slow down I simply restart X and am back in business literally with seconds. PPro? Not even close.

[Dean Neal]"needs to get serious about multi-user environments"

I use X in a 12 seat edit suite very happily. What does more "serious" mean? Obviously Apple isn't going to just la-dee-da stick an ISIS grade collaboration environment onto of X, so what exactly are you expecting that you can't get via 3rd parties already if needed?

That would be a good start, it's ridiculous that it doesn't have it already. Premiere has a feature where if you hit the "tilde" key then that panel goes full screen, I use that a lot and it would be great to have in the FCPX timeline, especially as I find myself doing a lot more compositing in it.

[Steve Connor]"Premiere has a feature where if you hit the "tilde" key then that panel goes full screen"

Sorry if I have no idea which area of FCP's interface I could possibly ever want full screen and have it make any practical sense whatsoever. Other than the Event window or the viewer… both of which are expandable to full screen. The viewer either way and the Event/Media window when using two screens, which I do. But then having that (and various other areas) expand full screen without seeing the viewer seems pretty nonsensical anyway. Other than maybe for the "because… I want to!" fraction. :-D

I personally find PPro's interface to be a painfully convoluted mess, getting worse with each version. AE is getting there, too. PS has already been there a very long time. Just downright arcane, cobbled together tab-panel-buttoned hell. In which case I can very much understand why you would need that functionality, yes.

Another nice UI enhancement would be that when you have two viewers up, you are able to play the source or timeline video from controls at the viewer. Not, having to highlight the source clip in the event in order to play it.
Like other NLEs :)

To what advantage exactly? For what? Things like selects or B-roll timelines and the likes?

In Premiere? Yes, definitely needed. Great feature in the context of Premiere, no doubt.

[Oliver Peters]"re-arranging where things like the inspector appear?"

Where for example? Where in the interface could its functionality and purpose be of greater use? Other than maybe for the one or other one time task, such as changing the library settings? And, I'm assuming, moving it next to the library window just for that would benefit me... how? Again, I don't see it, other than for mere reasons of "just… because… everyone else does it that way, so it must be right/the best". But you probably have a more convincing example?

It certainly could be taller though, yes.

[Oliver Peters]"when you have two viewers up"

Something I have had a full one time since its existence, as every other X editor I know. So I couldn't comment. But there are simple shortcuts and the tab key.

[Steve Connor]"They might be more reliable than the random way that FCPX currently holds projects with the arrow keys?"

So "more reliability" (nothing I've personally had an issue with) not "change to tabs". Because not having tabs makes far better, more sensible use of screen real estate. Which is what I'm assuming was exactly Apple reasoning behind those kinds of changes. Because if anything, then FCP's interface is probably the ONLY one that is even actually useable even on a 13" MBP because of those (smart imho) choices. Other NLEs… er, have yet to see them get close.

[Steve Connor]"Yes, it's a useful way to work sometimes"

Well, I'm 100% with Charlie as far as that's concerned: "Pancakes, Shmancakes […] a technique that is completely unnecessary in FCP X". For me just another one of those "because that's how "they" do it and I'm used to doing it" things one hears all the time. Again, apparently without understanding the alternatives — in my book the far superior ones — that X has to offer for the same tasks.

[Robin S. Kurz]"In which way are tabs functionally any better than what it has now?"

In the current version, if you have more than a handful of sequences (projects) open, FCPX frequently "forgets" some of them. The current forward/backward arrangement makes it tougher to move between versions.

[Robin S. Kurz]"To what advantage exactly? For what? Things like selects or B-roll timelines and the likes? "

Any situation where you want to work between sequences. The pancake allows you to see both sets of clips in their timelines and to freely move back and forth between them, simply by clicking from one to the other.

[Robin S. Kurz]"Where for example? Where in the interface could its functionality and purpose be of greater use?"

For instance, some editors would want the inspector to the left of the viewer or maybe over on the second screen.

Have never had that happen. But then I understand that it essentially works like the navigation in a browser. Go back a bit and then open something new, the previous "last" are gone, yes. I suppose one could consider options if that's what you're referring to.

[Oliver Peters]"The current forward/backward arrangement makes it tougher to move between versions."

How so? It's a simple shortcut or a click and hold on the arrows to see everything.

[Oliver Peters]"Any situation where you want to work between sequences."

Again, I don't see how that could be an advantage in X (see Charlie's video) considering the amount of screen real estate that takes (never mind the visual clutter) for something that can just as well be done using other methods. Giving up that much space and clicking-shoving-scaling around for something I need to see for a few seconds or clicks at best? But I guess I've simply never had that task where the trade-off could make practical sense.

[Oliver Peters]"some editors would want the inspector to the left of the viewer"

Because "I don't want Apple telling me what to do!", or because that actually poses some sort of workflow advantage, that is worth breaking up the GUI concept over? Because you would have to, which would make for problems elsewhere. If it's taking up too much space, the only reason that I've ever wanted to "move" the inspector, then: ⌘4?

The inspector is for changing clip, effect, title, whatever parameters 99.9% of the time. In other words that what you see right next to it in the Canvas. What specifically would having it (or any other area) to the left improve with that that I can't think of? And on pretty much every screen size I can think of, opening it doesn't even rescale the canvas if you've closed the library and/or the event window, which I in fact do, if rescaling is a concern.

Like I said, the fact that the scopes are in the same window as the canvas is the only thing I would want to change. But, ironically, even then I have no idea where it could be better. I certainly wouldn't want it floating.

That's actually the biggest problem I personally have with this oh-so-great flexible pushing around of screen elements and windows in apps such as Premiere, AE etc. In my experience, if most tabs are anywhere else than in their default layout position, things start looking completely funky, space is being wasted and the usability and visibility is made worse in a plethora of ways. Here the window content is only 10% visible, over there the opposite. 90% is blank because scaled up way too far, because of another tab that's docked with it. A complete waste with no advantage worth losing space over and just plain having a nasty visual mess imho. Then you "float one", click on another behind it… gone. Behind the others. Confusion, nervous clicking and random shoving of UI elements ensues making things even worse and wasting time. I just don't see it. It's obviously anyone's prerogative to disagree, but I will never be convinced that I'm giving up anything actually essential in comparison, instead of just tweaking what's there. Other than for reasons of "cuz I wanna". If Apple made the interface modular in the PPro sense anytime soon, I'd be very disappointed aside from even more surprised.

[Robin S. Kurz]"Because "I don't want Apple telling me what to do!", or because that actually poses some sort of workflow advantage, that is worth breaking up the GUI concept over?"

Some users prefer versatility and choice, which gives them a way to customize the UI in ways that improve their efficiency.

[Robin S. Kurz]" In my experience, if most tabs are anywhere else than in their default layout position, things start looking completely funky, space is being wasted and the usability and visibility is made worse in a plethora of ways. Here the window content is only 10% visible, over there the opposite. 90% is blank because scaled up way too far, because of another tab that's docked with it."

You are probably in the minority there. Adobe's implementation of the UI also enables third-party panels, which a lot of users really like. Obviously Apple chose a different route, since the Adobe approach was how FCP "classic" was designed.

I did a bit of consulting at the local Scrips/Howard/ABC TV station who's currently doing national programming in X, and one of their longtime editors had positioned their second monitor with the Event Browser on the right side of their Main Monitor and it just looked and felt to me REALLY weird.

For me, the layout Apple created mirrors metadata flow in the software.

Incoming files and pre-work on the left - assembly in the center - outgoing on the Share side to the right.

I believe in editor choice - so I didn't push it, but it seems to me that this "FLOW" process in X is conceptually very real - and it reminded me that this particular editor was very new to X.

[Oliver Peters]"to customize the UI in ways that improve their efficiency."

So, "cuz I wanna". Because, again, the question was how? What specifically would they do differently for the actual sake of improved efficiency, above and beyond the way it is now. I'm quite aware that others are asking for it in general, yes.

[Oliver Peters]"You are probably in the minority there. "

I wouldn't be too sure.

I suspect the vast majority merely demand that "flexibility" (which it is the opposite of in my eyes, at least in THAT incarnation) in the "because I'm used to having that way!" sense, without actually, objectively considering how and why another approach could actually be i.e. IS better. Unable to actually point to specifics (apparently) as to how or why it's so horribly constrictive to their workflow, which I think is a baseless meme. IOW pretty much in the exact same way that people react to the magnetic timeline for the first time. Some come around, others don't and go back to the comfortable world of same ol' same ol'. Horses for courses.

[Simon Ubsdell]"Would you consider that to be a mistake on their part?"

Since you didn't quote anybody and the threading here is so hellaciously convoluted, I don't know exactly who you're asking.

But if it was me: nope. But only because I know they would come up with something that isn't anything even remotely like what e.g. Adobe is doing and stay true to the overall groundwork they've already laid. It's not exactly like they decide on how to do things haphazardly or on a whim. There's a lot of planning, design and logic behind it, whether others can (or want to) see and appreciate it or not.

[Simon Ubsdell]"you thought that it was impossible to improve on the rigid layouts"

Aside from them not actually being rigid but already pretty flexible, I only meant that I think it's pretty obvious that Apple isn't in the "if everyone else is doing it, it must be right" game and therefore won't just blindly follow others, yes.

[Simon Ubsdell]"for the last 5+ years."

As opposed to what Adobe has had for, what, the past twenty+ years? :-D

Either way, I can't think of any time where Apple made changes of X's magnitude to anything, software or otherwise, and then just said "Oops" years later only to do an about-face. :)

Avid on the other hand strikes me as (maybe) having had actual GUI designers sometime in the late eighties, possibly nineties. Since then the engineers have made all the icons, any and every other interface element and related decisions. :-P

[Robin S. Kurz]"Aside from them not actually being rigid but already pretty flexible"

I've read what you've said about this here and take on board some of your arguments, but let me give you an example where Apple's "rigidity" as I'm calling it is distinctly sub-optimal and that's the Inspector.

The height of the Inspector is at all times constrained by the height of the Timeline and of course there is a fixed minimum height for the Timeline as well.

This means that you can never use the full height of the screen for the Inspector, and for Effects, Generators and Transitions with anything more than the bare minimum of controls this is a clear limitation.

For comparison, we can look at what BMD did with Resolve. Exact same layout, but you can toggle the Inspector to full height as needed.

Apple could have done the same, but they didn't.

So that's just one example, but it does suggest that Apple don't always design things in the best possible way.

[Simon Ubsdell]"The height of the Inspector is at all times constrained by the height of the Timeline […] but you can toggle the Inspector to full height as needed."

Yes, I actually mentioned that further up. ;) That would be one of the tweaks I would love to see that makes a lot of sense.

[Simon Ubsdell]"but it does suggest that Apple don't always design things in the best possible way."

I don't believe there is a "best" for anything. No matter HOW you do it, it'll always be a give and take in one way or another and you'll never make everybody happy. I just personally feel that the way it is (incl. the headroom for improvement) is one with the overall least "takes". Turning to floating and/or randomly swappable windows and tabs most certainly is not a solution imho, quite the opposite. And if you look at ALL of Apple's apps, there is not one that has floating anything anymore, where they ALL used to have floating everything. Aside from maybe Motion's HUD. Which I in fact find difficult to work with, since there's never a good spot for it. It's a constant on/off… or just plain OFF, as incredibly useful and clever I find it in principle. So they could even dock THAT for all I cared. :D

So I think it's pretty delusional to think they'll suddenly "come to" and go back to floaters etc. anytime soon, if anyone actually believes that or thinks it's somehow a good idea or could pose an actual improvement. Do you?

[Robin S. Kurz]"So I think it's pretty delusional to think they'll suddenly "come to" and go back to floaters etc. anytime soon, if anyone actually believes that or thinks it's somehow a good idea or could pose an actual improvement. Do you?"

I'm with you on floating windows and agree that the HUD in Motion is more trouble than it's worth.

However, just to be annoying I'm going to point out that there are indeed floating windows in FCP X, namely Record Voice-Over and Background Tasks.

Okay… but you know what I mean. d-; Those of course being probably the only functions/areas that you'll not want open beyond a glance or single use, so embedding them into the interface like everything else I'd say would be counterproductive.

And sure, if you wanted to be pedantic, then there are in fact several plugins that invoke a floating window (which I actually don't think is always great either) as well. So there's that.

But there you go! So Apple does know when to let go of basic GUI principles and convictions! ;-D

[Oliver Peters]"but only because of the half-hearted implementation that Apple used."

And I'd say they only implemented it to appease the lamenting "pros" that clearly didn't and don't grasp how, in my view, completely nonsensical (and waste of space) it is in the context of how X does things. Seeing that it contradicts Apple's otherwise so brilliant optimization for small screen in particular. I think it was more of a knee-jerk reaction to the out of control perturbitude of the early days. But I could be wrong.

But I do admit that I've put in a request for the old "QuickView" panel. But that's something completely different from a "Viewer" in that sense and can in fact be emulated via 3rd party solutions to a great degree if needed.

[Brian Seegmiller]"Adobe's UI is very messy and cluttered in my opinion. I like simple."

Because it's modular, Adobe's UI is as cluttered as you make it.

The touch-friendly layouts are nice and simple. You also have the flexibility to scale that up to a 747 cockpit view. In Ae specifically, I really like a 747 cockpit layout on a large monitor, in order to keep as many controls accessible at the same time as possible.

[Robin S. Kurz]"Okay, I'll give you the timeline. So if they added that option… what else? What important interface magic would you perform other than that, that FCP is in such need of IYHO? :-) A a tilde key?? "

[Steve Connor]"complex timeline full screen on one screen with a viewer full screen on another screen"

That would be nice. Interestingly enough, the interface reacts differently on a laptop than when using one screen of a dual screen configuration. Not sure about a single screen iMac. On my MBP, I can set the UI to only display the viewer and the timeline without events. Not possible on my MP.

That's my impression of PPro. When my son asked me about doing a modestly convoluted workflow, I looked at PPro and said, basically, "I'm too old to waste my time learning and untangling this interface. Even Adobe's Help documents require a level of study (they are too verbal, no easy-to-get pictures like FCPX). I volunteered to help only if we did it in FCPX, which as I described above we did quickly and easily. In spite of certain pitfalls (see Oliver's troubles with audio on this forum, about 4-6 months ago I think) ... I still find FCPX's methods of dealing with audio simple, easy to get and fast to use.

[Robin S. Kurz]"I'm curious… what would your improved interface look like? What would be where? Because outside of maybe the scopes being in the same window as the viewer, I can't think of a single thing I would change that would be better than the way it is with the various shortcuts and fly in/out palettes etc. Maybe savable workspaces. But other than that…"

Yes, I meant more saveable workspaces. I would also love now for the project timeline to follow the playhead more fluidly.

I agree, most of the fundamentals of the GUI are good, however would like a bit more flexibility in the arrangement of the workspace.

[Robin S. Kurz]"I use X in a 12 seat edit suite very happily. What does more "serious" mean? "

Yes, there are some third party solutions out there - (eg. SNS EVO) however is the inherent, FCPX Library model truly, inherently 'multi-user' friendly? Databases are seldom *just* one user to much data. It should support many (users) to many (data). Not just relying on third party solutions. Maybe I ask for too much. :-)

The library model and the metadata foundations of X are brilliant, but it would be even better if it supported multi-users in a more fluid, autonomous way.

Because it works incredibly well, and is very stable with raw footage - in particular R3D. The playback quality, editing performance and export speed with 6K, 5K and 4K raw media is better than Avid, Resolve and Premiere in our experience.

It also lets you collaborate with plugin developers so that you can build workflows that are not possible when using Avid, Premiere and Resolve.

You can also utilise incredibly cheap and effective shared storage from people like Lumaforge so that multiple people can collaborate on a large project, for much less investment than that of an equivalent edit system.

It does need some tweaks for exporting custom bitrate files and for how it handles embedded audio, but overall its fantastic.

A number of great "in action" stories have been linked. I would also suggest these from Steve Hullfish's "Art of the Cut" series. Steve does the best editor-to-editor interviews on the web, because he gets deeper into why a lot of editors do what they do, particularly when it comes to the software.

- The magnetic timeline, although taking months to really get used to (I also came from FCP7), becomes a second nature, and by far the fast way to cut stuff and try out ideas, or doing changes for a client like: "can we put that over there?"
You cannot really judge the timeline before you worked on it for months. Then your brain just automatically starts thinking in terms of "I'll put that in the primary storyline, this as a connected clip, this as a connected storyline" etc. ... But you have to give yourself the time and a lot of cursing, to make your brain think automatically in those steps.

One very significant factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is the FCP X/Motion ecosystem which has had a truly revolutionary impact on the market.

I suspect Apple thought not much further than giving FCP X editors a way of building fancy lower thirds, but what it has meant in practice is a genuine transformation.

Because anything you build in Motion can be used directly inside FCP X with control over the majority of parameters, most FCP X editors are now building their own sophisticated graphics packages in a way that they simply haven't done before and in ways that are just not as easily achieved with any other system.

That has led to many of them becoming "plug-in developers", creating and sharing and selling a huge variety of utilities and templates and effects and transitions and more, without having to learn how to write a single line of code. The result is that there must be far more on offer in terms of these types of "plug-ins" for FCP X than for any other NLE.

I often finding myself choosing to use FCP X for this feature alone - the ease of building a custom effect for a particular project is a compelling case to go for FCP X over another NLE.

Just one of the many ways in which FCP X has encouraged editors to "think different".

[Simon Ubsdell]"One very significant factor that doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet is the FCP X/Motion ecosystem which has had a truly revolutionary impact on the market."

+1

This can't be emphasized too much. This is not like round tripping between Ae and Pr. This is giving editors the ability to create custom plug-ins from projects in Motion that they use often. It's another brilliant implementation. The fact that one person can learn Motion and then make an FX for others to use in FCP X without requiring Motion or knowledge of Motion is a huge timesaver.

[Michael Paul]"So far it doesn't make any sense to me since I come from programs like Avid or Premiere."

Best advice is to forget about Premiere and MC and how things are done there. This is a different way to work. Trying to force an MC or Premiere "way of doing things" on X is a recipe for frustration. I would look into Lynda.com FCPX Essentials class or the Ripple training to get solid basics down for the X workflow.

No don't worry. This is NOT a troll post. I was dead serious. Seems like nowadays people always believe someone is trolling on the internet. If I were trolling I would 1) go somewhere else 2) word my stuff differently. I had thought that people might feel attacked or defensive about their program so this is why I've even put no bashing- serious discussion in the thread. I do not know what else I could have said. So yes I am reading all this, I am looking at the links and yes I am excited to get used to the program and realizing how great it is. Like others said it takes time. The links you have provided are also good so thanks for that. I was also already liking comments.

I am also looking forward to read more comments. I have found some things that I thought are nice but I am a bit embarassed to bring those up. It's "tiny stuff" and stuff you might not even be using.

I like the 3d text feature and it's ACTUAL 3d text. I think that's cool. What I haven't found yet / figured out yet: Can I also 3d rotate a bitmap/plane? Premiere has this 3d filter I can put onto anything and then I can rotate and flip a flat picture/text/whatever in 3d. I tend to use that for some graphics and text. I couldn't find it in FCPX yet. I did some 3d text without any depth but the colour still seems to change depending on how I rotate it (so I never get a true white) because there seems to be a light source of some kind I can not ignore.

I also thought that zoom onto a picture feature is way faster than moving and scaling a picture around in any other program.

I've learned some trick to leave a gap at the very beginning and put your music there so if you remove your first clip it won't affect the music for your entire film- Not sure how to think about such "hacking" solutions yet.

So yes I've read it all. I am here and I am looking forward to more examples and reasons why you love and use it. This is the discussion forum after all- don't feel attacked. I am curious, excited, new to this and willing to learn and looking forward to have a great time in FCPX.

Good to hear you are taking your first steps with FCP X very seriously. And yes, it is being used by many content creators all over the planet. If you just look at the line-up we got together for our little event at IBC, you will see that it is very popular among a lot of television and film producers in Europe: http://www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/1847-fcpx-tour-ibc-announced-10-11...

As to your questions:

FCP X has true 3D text (not just some 2D extrusion like in many other apps). This means that the text accepts materials, lighting and shadows. And that's what you see when you rotate the text, even if you use a flat title. Of course you can use non-reflecting materials, or manipulate your lighting, so your white stays white however you rotate the text. You can find a lot of tips about working with 3D text materials and reflections here:

- If you want to replace the first clip on your timeline without affecting a music clip that its attached to it, use the Replace function.

- If you want to delete the first clip on your timeline without affecting a music clip that its attached to it, press Delete + Tilde (grave) key.

- You also can change the connection point for your music if you don't want it to be connected to your first clip on the timeline: place your playhead (or skimmer) under any clip on the timeline, press ALT+CMD and click on the music clip. It will now be attached to the clip where your playhead is.

I just felt the need to say that those videos are great so thanks for that. I've been looking at a lot of those in the past days but still felt the need to let you know that I really appreciated those.

[Michael Paul]"Premiere has this 3d filter I can put onto anything and then I can rotate and flip a flat picture/text/whatever in 3d."

If you mean a 3D DVE, for some reason FCPX doesn't include one by default. However, Motion has that and many folks have created and published Motion templates as their own version of the standard 3D DVE effect. A number are available for free:

[Michael Paul]"I've learned some trick to leave a gap at the very beginning and put your music there so if you remove your first clip it won't affect the music for your entire film- Not sure how to think about such "hacking" solutions yet."

The trick with connecting clips is where to make the attachment. By default, it's always the first frame of the primary clip. However, in some cases you want to change the attachment point either to later within that clip or to the clip before or after. It depends on what action you want, based on what the magnetic timeline will do when you move the primary clip around.

[Michael Paul]"So why do you use FCPX? What are your reasons? What's great about it? I have started to use it now so of course I am lacking experience in it. So far it doesn't make any sense to me since I come from programs like Avid or Premiere. "

Re your question it is probably easier to show you than tell you. See this presentation by Thomas Grove Carter on editing high-end commercials using FCPX:

Provided you accept the implied workflow and work *with* FCPX, it is especially strong at documentary or anything with a high shooting ratio. The skimmer is incredibly fast and tagging, rating and keywording content can greatly expedite post-production. See MacBreak Studio's "Warp Speed Keywording:

Last weekend I had a conversation with several well-respected Indie filmmakers (who don't use FCPX). I asked them as quality cameras become ever more affordable, multicam more common and shooting ratios skyrocket, do they use a Digital Asset Manager or what? The answer was "we just use bins". They admitted it was such a problem they try to ingest only the good takes and rely heavily on notes from their script supervisor. There are add-on solutions to this like CatDV: http://www.squarebox.com/ but it seems lower end productions usually don't use them and high-end productions often have a custom system.

One advantage of FCPX is media management is built in, and not just a toy. It is scalable from low end single-camera vlogger-type productions up to feature films.

The 3rd-party plugin market for FCPX is very active, so if you need specific features not in the core product by all means investigate this. FxFactory is kind of like the App Store for plugins: https://fxfactory.com/download/

FCPX is not perfect and there are several things I wish they'd fix. However it is very fast and uses available machine resources efficiently. The problem is to fully utilize FCPX you must learn to think a little differently, and work with it, not against it. This can take some mental reorientation, and IMO there is a deficiency in tutorial information which elaborates on the conceptual and philosophical differences which led to FCPX and the workflow changes this implies.

[Craig Seeman]"There is this from Apple
Final_Cut_Pro_X_for_Final_Cut_Pro_7_Editors"

That's the kind of thing I mean. It is mostly vague references to a "completely new trackless editing paradigm designed for speed and flexibility". Nothing specific about optimal workflow using the new paradigm, no background info on why the change to such a radically different system, etc. They don't even describe what the skimmer is, how it's qualitatively different, or what new workflow it enables.

Imagine in 1984 if Apple merely described the groundbreaking MacOS by summarizing what each menu choice did, vs elaborating on *why* it's different, what led up to the new approach, and how investing in the new approach is worthwhile.

The thing thats still bothering me a lot (and this is something that doesn't fully make sense to me YET but I know I have to get used to it) is the secondary story line (I am sorry if I might be using wrong terms) and the fact that the MAIN story line has a lot of great editing features I need in my daily life but the connected clips above don't have any of those editing features. If I use IN and OUT to select a range I only select the main time line but everything above just gets ignored. That's really annoying to me and I have no real idea how to edit anything above the main time line. The way it looks like to me: Make up your mind FIRST- already try to do your editing as good as possible- throw your broll in there and then if you have a few connected clips you can group them and turn them into a secondary story line so you gain the all the editing abilites again. This is kinda odd to me. Really I just want to use in and out to maybe remove something but NO I can't. So what I have to do is use the blade tool and move my connected clips around - just why? I get that they are connected but say I have 5 clips ABOVE ("track2" - I don't know if the term is just connected clips here I guess?) 1 main clip. I can not simply remove the end or the beginning of a middle clip of those 5 clips. I will need to use the blade, cut the end of that clip and then select the 2 clips that are next to it no the left and move those to close the gap.

That's really something where I am still like WHY?

-----------------------------------------

I also fail to get the reply feature on Creative Cow even though I am on here for so many years already. Isn't there a feature to add a reply to this entire thread? I think if I will reply to my original post my reply won't show up at the very bottom of this thread as the latest reply or will it? So I am replying to the last poster even though this is just a general reply and not directed towards you.

[Michael Paul]"I have no real idea how to edit anything above the main time line....... turn them into a secondary story line so you gain the all the editing abilites again. "

Basically connected clips are cutaways (though they don't have to be) that ride above the primary storyline. Whatever is topmost is what's visible, unless you are scaling down or compositing. You can turn connected clips into a secondary storyline. For example, if you want dissolves between connected clips - makes these a single secondary storyline and then add transitions.

If you want, then it is possible to edit inside the secondary storyline. This lets you have several connected clips travel as a single group, which is connected at a single point. This is a good way to deal with music edits and narration VO. In order to edit within a secondary storyline, you have to highlight the group (select the top bar), not a clip within the secondary storyline. Then you can insert or overwrite from the browser. However, in-outs are determined by the source only.

So, these don't work exactly like tracks nor like the primary storyline, but gets you close. And yes, you can have multiple secondary storylines. Does that help?

[Michael Paul]"I can not simply remove the end or the beginning of a middle clip of those 5 clips. I will need to use the blade, cut the end of that clip and then select the 2 clips that are next to it no the left and move those to close the gap. "

[Michael Paul]"is the secondary story line (I am sorry if I might be using wrong terms)"

Yes, you are. At least in this case. Because you go on to described simple CONNECTED clips, not a secondary STORYLINE. The only things that have the magnetic timeline features are the primary or secondary storylines, not regular connected clips, no.

Five CONNECTED clips:

Five clips in a connected STORYLINE:

The latter (created with ⌘G or by holding G and moving them together) will give you the desired auto-closing of gaps, the former will not. Also SELECTING a secondary prior to hitting one of the edit keys (Q, W, E) will perform that in the secondary, not the primary.

[Michael Paul]"If I use IN and OUT to select a range I only select the main time line but everything above just gets ignored."

Have you tried turning on the Clip Skimmer (⌥⌘S)? With that you can set ins and outs on a secondary or connected clip. Or use the Range tool (R).

[Michael Paul]"I can not simply remove the end or the beginning of a middle clip of those 5 clips."

Sure you can. In a myriad of ways. Either select an edit point and hit ⇧X with the skimmer at the position you want to move it or even (assuming you're on a US keyboard) ⌥ and [ or ] to trim in or out. Whether they ripple depends, again, on whether they are just connected or in a storyline.

Bottom line: you need some decent basic training! These are ALL things that any decent training will cover. That would have saved you this entire thread if you ask me.

[Michael Paul]"Anyways I am just really curious and I would love to hear it from you because the Apple page isn't very convincing. It lists features like "you can add audio and EDIT your footage" - oh wow...
"

Okay, back from vacation.

Here's some of what I would have written back when you posted this.

First comes the fact that while the core concepts of "editing" (storytelling, pacing, guiding the viewer, etc) remain the same as they ever were - the vast majority of our editing workflows have changed and reacted to advancements in the modern era. That's just a fact.

Traditionally, the technical process of video making was piecemeal and disconnected. Audio was a thing. Principal Photography was a thing. Graphics was a thing. Organization was a thing. Different departments and different teams did their jobs at different times. But now, in many cases, it's all converged. ALL digital editors regardless of their NLE, manage sound AND are required to organize and manipulate files across the spectrum of a project. Most NLEs before X simply virtualized that traditional process while remaining as close and as comfortable to the traditions so that editors would remain "familiar" with the new digital tools.

Then Randy Ubillos was given a gift by the culture at Apple. Remember, as the father of Premier and then FCP Legacy, he was the guy who had - more than anyone else in history - spent his career putting professional digital NLE concepts in more hands than anyone else. He KNEW the pro side well, but also always respected those that just wanted to communicate, via video, on all levels. The key Randy (and the whole X development team) was given, IMO, was the gift to not just iterate, but to conceptually IMPROVE the tools of modern video editing.

I personally think he took stock of what was POSSIBLE rather than just what was expected. And I'm glad he did.

He didn't go totally "wild." - which is the blessing and the curse of X, IMO.

It "looks" familiar. There's a central timeline-ish area, and lots of familiar stuff. BUT - not all of the familiar stuff works the way it used to. Expectations do not translate directly for skilled editors. You try to drive it, and your preconceptions start to fail. Not in Huge, catastrophic fashions - but in too many small, medium-sized frustrating ways.

But if an editor can get beyond that frustration - something starts to emerge that is surprising and actually, quite glorious. You start to realize that things that you felt were "required" as a part of your workflow - that you've long stopped noticing (like track patching) are gone. Dozens and in time, hundreds of small decisions that were rote and actually meaningless have disappeared. You notice that while you once spent the VAST majority of your career thinking horizontally - you've started thinking vertically, in magnetic assemblies. And notice that once you have a vertical assembly done - it's DONE. You can move it and ALL your work stays intact. That and a hundred new X specific ideas start shaving minutes, hours and eventually whole DAYS off your editing schedule.

I could go on talking about the database and keyword trimming etc, etc, etc, but I won't. If you adopt X you will find this along your own journey.

And If you decide NOT to systematically learn X and just grudgingly use it when forced - you'll have an annoying time coming. But that's OK. Not everyone gets it. We're all different. That's fine.

I just happened to look at it and instead of getting stuck on the negative like so many others - I just got fascinated with it early.

Due simply to my early finding merit in the X ideas and being a web blabbermouth about my feelings, I now have pretty good X industry contacts all around the world. From HUGE enterprises to small agencies. I watch the flow of X sharing and ideas from everywhere. Globally, X is kinda on fire. (And likely to accelerate soon, I suspect!)

I know it's doing great because I chat with the actual people using it. And the growth and breadth of the group globally is STUNNING. I think it's far and away broader than anything AVID and/or Legacy ever achieved, not necessarily because of the tool itself, but because the world is smaller today. My friends now include a young lady cutting tasteful weddings and learning in the shadow of the Taj Mahal - to my friend who's huge company just moved him from the Czech Republic to Ireland to manage massive corporate visual content for a major global consulting firm. The globe is definitely being digitized. And video is useful everywhere. And X exists because there's a need everywhere. And that need is NOT basic, nor trivial. It's complex, professional and RELENTLESS. Video fuels the information transfer of the world like never before.

X is an awesome video tool. Period. If you're still thinking in terms of "is it pro" I think you're asking the wrong question. The actual question is "which of the tools provides the most advanced capabilities for digital manipulation in the ways I'll need to manipulate digital data in the present and for the future."

The magic about X is that the same tool that my young friend Surabai, in Mumbai can use to make her living in a small team of editors cutting weddings ALSO can totally cut a major studio motion picture out of the box, no handholding, nothing different from what you can I get from the App Store. Stop and think about that for a second. Why? Perhaps because digital is digital and content is content and the way programs develop today is NOT how they used to? The zillion dollar tape machines are gone, right? Heck, the smartphone captures light nearly as well as some of yesterdays high-end cameras could. The same NLE codebase can be EXTENDED into particular use groups with specialized needs IF the CORE code is strong. And the X code is young and very strong, IMO. Apple sells a modern digital digital editing core in two flavors. iMovie for modest needs - and a highly extensible and stunningly robust FCP X for heavy duty commercial and industrial users needs. The core of both is modern, fast, and agile. And developing.

My global friends also have learned what Hollywood is also learning. The cutting is ONE thing. Critical, seminal, and transcendent. The work has to ROCK. But in the modern era - the cut isn't the only thing that needs to ROCK. Taming the data whirlpool that gets bigger the more people who are involved AROUND the cut is also ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. From weird incoming sources to managing tablet screeners for big-wigs, it's not enough to do the work, we all need to manage the work efficiently. And the built-in tools in X are absolutely amazing at that.

The point of the spear in editing is one brain in one seat. Alway has been - always will be. Collaboration and sharing is great - but the tool has to let one brain at a time connect to the material AND to their collaborators, no matter where they may be - at home, on the road, or in the seats of a fixed facility. Metadata, sharing, revision, - basically the AGILITY necessary to manage the inflow and the outflow is every bit as critical as the cut today. And to echo my earlier thoughts, THAT is another area where Apple has created a singular tool in FCP X.

FCP X helps a single editor "fit in" to the swirl, I'd argue, better than any other tool out there. Interestingly, that same tools - because it's steeped in metadata handling - makes collaboration possibilities incredibly robust as well - and I know a lot of "shop" editors who work in teams who love the X system as much as any solo guy like me. Yes, I get it. All NLEs do metadata. But only X was purpose CREATED to manage it - from the ground up. It's not an overlay to a program designed as an overlay on top of a direct reflection of 1980s A/B roll techniques - it's the CORE of the program.

What X editors know, is that it's not the timeline alone that has to make sense to the editor to be proficient in X. It's the entire X system. And when it clicks for an editor - it brings a sense of ease and fluidity that is pretty special.

Alright so I am a power user. I want my programs to do exactly what I want them to do. I feel like I have to ADJUST to Final Cut and I have to do as Apple intended me to do - there is no other way. Take it or leave it. This forcing something down your throat mentality is VERY Apple like. Now I know we are talking about an Apple product here so of course people who are CONVINCED of Apple's mentality and mindset will be using those so I would be barking at the wrong tree here. It just won't make me any friends here so lets not go there also Apple bashing or bashing in general is pretty immature.

Thing is: I WANT TO LEARN FCPX and I want to learn to love it. Overall you people are HAPPY with it and there must be reasons for it.

If I ignore the time line it seems pretty great. I really love how it organizes stuff. I also have no problem with how you select your footage- this is all great. I enjoy it but that time line...

I always read DON'T FIGHT THE MAGNETIC TIME LINE. Do not use it like any other NLE and don't try to force your old work flow into FCPX - once you understand it and accepted it you will love it and you will never want back.
Those are phrases I hear everywhere but they seem to be without any meaning- like marketing mubo jumbo people bought in just like "Macs JUST WORK" (No they don't. They are computers like any other computer). So PLEASE and I really BEG YOU and mean PLEASE what is so great about the magnetic time line? What is that mentality I have to accept- the mentality and mindset of doing WHAT exactly? I can't exactly grasp yet what you guys mean.
I also FAIL at selecting stuff. I love features like that arrow you had in Final Cut 7 (or Avid or what not) where I can select EVERYTHING from the right of my play head or everything from the left of my play head. That way I can just move it all away. Do I seriously need to draw a rectangle each time?

You will find answers to many of your questions and gain seriously valuable insights into how a power user of FCP X makes it work - I defy you not to be impressed after seeing some of things that Charlie does with it.

[Michael Paul]"PLEASE what is so great about the magnetic time line? What is that mentality I have to accept- the mentality and mindset of doing WHAT exactly?"

I'm like you. I like most of the organizational features, but the MT - meh! I do like the vertical compactness of it for source audio tracks. That's great because if you sync'ed 8 channels of double-system audio, you can open it or close it as needed. That's cool.

Others here like the fact that you can drag clips around and everything connected follows and re-arranges in place without clip collisions. I find that to often be a 'two steps forward, one step back' situation. That's because the clips are often set to overlap (like b-roll shots) and therefore they are connected to the clip just before the one I'm moving, not the correct one. The easiest solution to that is to always change the connecting point to the middle of the clip (a nice feature request) before you move things around. Naturally that's an extra step, but that way the connecting clips move with the intended clip.

Unfortunately sometimes these clips re-arrange in vertical hierarchy - a connected clip that was partially under another connecting clip in the old location now rests above one in the new position. You have to be mindful of this and make sure the stacking order ends up where you want it to. That's much more predictable in a track-based timeline, although then you may have clip collisions to contend with. So even though a lot of folks here rail against "track tetris" in a track-based system, to me it seems like you are playing the game just as much with X, only in a different way.

[Michael Paul]"where I can select EVERYTHING from the right of my play head or everything from the left of my play head. That way I can just move it all away. Do I seriously need to draw a rectangle each time?"

Yes, even though Apple had it in FCP "classic", they chose not to implement it in X (yet). Premiere Pro does have it.

One of the ways I'm found to tame X a bit is to map all the panel configuration changes to the function keys and then the timeline views to the shift-function keys. That way the interface can be changed quite quickly to having windows open or not - or to have the chicklet view of the timeline or a large waveform view.

Here is the thing: I am starting to like the basic idea behind connected clips. In a nutshell: Everything stays together- it is connected.
Now here are some problems I have ran into and you might know a great way to deal with those I simply hadn't thought of yet:
Music/Sound is connected to a clip in the primer. That clip in the primer has to go- I delete it and BAM my music/sound is gone as well while I would want it to stay - solution? Maybe tell it to be connected to a gap I am about to create and just stay where it is but I don't know how - maybe it's super easy but I just woke up because I had to type down this message and I have no Final Cut in front of me.

Same goes for this example: I was doing an interview- I had plenty of broll shots above my primer. Now the Interview had to get shortened / some clips and parts from the interview (which is the main time line / the primer) had to go. That way all my connected clips also got deleted while I would have just wanted them to stay where they were. Maybe I grouped them and put them into a second...nope that way they would still be connected to the primer and get deleted anyways so what's the solution for this? Like a total noob and finding no solution for letting brolls be where they should be / let them remain at the same position I just copy and pasted them at the very end of my time line and put them back again after I had removed/trimmed and what not my main interview. This seems like a terrible workflow and I know this is NOT the way to do it but I didn't know any better and still don't know a solution for this. Thanks a lot. Seriously this keeps me awake at night or wakes me up again but I will go back to bed now.

Thanks a lot everyone for your great input! I really want to become a FCPX editor and I am serious about this. I see it as a challenge I want to master.

[Michael Paul]"Music/Sound is connected to a clip in the primer. That clip in the primer has to go- I delete it and BAM my music/sound is gone as well while I would want it to stay - solution? "

Both problems, same solution: shift delete: gap clip replaces the original clip, connected clips stay, above or below the 'primer', probably not what you want, but sometimes useful.
What you want (maybe?): command-alt-delete: clip disappears, connected clips stay, above or below the 'primer'. Now you probably have to move the connected clips....

[Michael Paul]"same goes for this example: I was doing an interview- I had plenty of broll shots above my primer. Now the Interview had to get shortened / some clips and parts from the interview (which is the main time line / the primer) had to go. That way all my connected clips also got deleted while I would have just wanted them to stay where they were. Maybe I grouped them and put them into a second...nope that way they would still be connected to the primer and get deleted anyways so what's the solution for this?"

[Michael Paul]"I also FAIL at selecting stuff. I love features like that arrow you had in Final Cut 7 (or Avid or what not) where I can select EVERYTHING from the right of my play head or everything from the left of my play head. That way I can just move it all away. Do I seriously need to draw a rectangle each time?"

Thats just the joy of the MT that most of the time u don't have to select forward/bw....
Maybe if you could describe what you want to achieve some powerusers (not me) can point you towards the new way of doing things...
For zooming, scrolling, selecting I really like the trackpad.

But then… why even use that (most of the time)? If you want to insert something, simply do it. Remember? It's the magnetic timeline. ;) A "double-arrow" tool would be both redundant and superfluous. Which is why it obviously will never happen. I'm very surprised to hear anyone that knows their way around X (or claims to) even actually ask for it. Weird.

"You can use the timeline index to select everything on your right or left from the playhead."

How exactly would I do this? So I have the timeline index opened but what do I do then? Totally unreleated but in some tutorials I saw people had a button NEXT to timeline index. I only have the timeline index button at the bottom left- any idea what it could have been? Also thanks for that advice.

[Michael Paul]"So I have the timeline index opened but what do I do then?"

Shift click as with any and every other list in FCP… or anywhere else for that matter?

So now are you trying to SELECT or MOVE the clips past a certain point?? Because selecting to move (in a case like that) is completely unnecessary and convoluted in the context of the magnetic timeline.

[Michael Paul]"in some tutorials I saw people had a button NEXT to timeline index."

Then those were clearly AGE old tutorials. As in 3+ years. Like they say: you get what you pay for.

" Then those were clearly AGE old tutorials. As in 3+ years. Like they say: you get what you pay for."
No need to get hostile or assume anything. It's just something I saw in Youtube videos and since I am very new to the software I have no idea what is NORMAL and what isn't normal so I don't see any reason why you have to assume I've paid little money for very old tutorials or something like that. Like I've said I am very new to FCPX - I am using it under a week. Never mind though.
--------------

THIS IS MY PERSONAL CONCLUSION IN CASE ANYONE IS WONDERING WHAT MY STATE OF MIND IS LIKE RIGHT NOW AND WHAT MY OPINION IS AFTER USING FCPX FOR A FEW DAYS AND AFTER LEARNING A LOT FROM YOU GUYS

First of all I would love to say THANK YOU VERY MUCH to EVERYONE in here. You guys have helped a lot. is an amazing video that also helps a lot.

I've liked the organizing of clips from the very beginning. Very great.
I love that I can select areas I want to later use / hide those / that it shows me the dube detection INSIDE the clips. In Avid (for example) I add something to the time line and THEN I see: "oops it's already in the time line" because of the dube detection. Knowing this in ADVANCE is amazing. Also here is a workflow I have in Premiere: One timeline with ALL my footage and then I "cut out" clips I need and later colour those in accordingly so I know that I have already used those - it can help a lot with big projects but the way FCPX handles it is just amazing.

Now here are important short cuts I have learned that make my life easier:
Set an IN and OUT for a clip and deleted everything that ISN'T in the in and out range.
Changing where a connector for a connected clip is located helps a lot as well.
Deleting a clip from the time line and leaving a gap is very handy as well.

So far I am really excited about learning a new program. You find stuff out and you are like "OH THIS IS COOL I never thought of it that way". It's all fun and I like it. Once again I would like to thank you ALL for the patience and GREAT replies.